Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
Last December Matt Cutts, Head of Google WebSpam Team, wrote a post which impressed me indeed:
Tell me about your backlinks [mattcutts.com]
Here is part of what Matt Cutts wrote at that post:
My favorite overall moment was when a totally legit company (micromatic.com) stood up and asked for advice. Overall, their site was great: good architecture and very crawlable. They had lots of really good backlinks, including industry-specific links. But I could also tell that they’d been buying some backlinks. And they were buying backlinks from the exact same place as one of the earlier sites! At the point when in a minute of typing, I can say: you guys are both trying to buy backlinks, and I can tell that you’re buying them from the same network, and here’s an example page from ketv.com where both of you are even on the same page, and it’s not doing you any good at all: that just made my day. Having a concrete demonstration is so much better than just making a claim, especially when one of the sites says beforehand that they’re not doing as well as they used to be. I told micromatic.com that they had a great site, so they should stop trying to buy backlinks and spend more money to reward their inhouse SEO who had done a great job on the crawlability and architecture of the site.
When you read that post you might get the same impression that I got; Google knows and penalize buyers and maybe also sellers of Backlinks. Not so, unfortunately.
However, it just happened that I know of a site (not mine) which purchased backlinks during the first 4 months or so of 2006. I know from which sites the backlinks were purchased. And I know approximately how much was paid for most of the purchased BLs. No rel=nofollow was applied, of course.
Then the current indications of PR update arrived. And I checked the PR of the site which purchased the said BLs.
WOW... boost in PR from PR4 to PR7!
And I checked the PR of the sites which sold the BLs.
WOW.. they retained their high PR!
Am I the only one who have noticed Google rewarding sellers and buyers of BLs?
Have you noticed the same?
Your feedback would be highly appreciated.
2.reseller ..Google is a company like any other ..formerly responsible to it's bosses ..now to it's shareholders ..neither group are in my opinion more "moral" than the others ..ther mission is to make money ( not to organise the info ..thats cybercrat crapspeak ) ..just like newspapers and tv is there to make money for their owners ..not to report news .."editorial" stances and ethics last just as long as the profits make the boss or the shareholders happy ..the fabrication of some smoke and mirrors takes a long time to prepare..
( and some organisations prepare their ground for years and give just enough "real breadcrumbs" to the boards to allow their ersatz to be swallowed along with the rest ) ..I have seen spam on here that was dropped by people who joined years before me and who waited to establish trust here for 3 years before linking to their products in "tag team" ..
anything from any declared search engine rep is suspect ..you think they are failing in their declared intention?..to prevent link buying and selling ..that was never their real intention ..they cant prevent it ..
I digress ..
what is the puchase of adwords?...
the selling of links from the pages of serps ..
what is adsense?
.. the selling of targeted links from the webpages it appears on ..
why is the surrounding text in the document important in the google algo when considering the value of a link?..
because that how they run adsense ( and very few adsense publishers can actually think laterally enough to see how that can be used to their advantage to drive traffic )..they are to busy trying to game what they think is the system ..
green pixels are irrelevant ..and have been so since laonger than many realise or are prepared to admit ..
and from the general tone of your posts previously ..you would appear to have the intelligence to have realised that ..a long ..long time ago ..
Then again the occasional thread ..
such as this ...serve to clarify ..in the responses at least ..certain misunderstandings ..
your nouveau disillusionment is interesting ..
genuine ..?
search for the truth ..or advice?
again distraction and diversion?
seeking to expose certain?
warning off of the timid from what google can not control but would like us to think they can?
this may have been one of your more instructive threads ..even if I suspect that was not strictly your intention ..;-)
[edited by: tedster at 1:48 am (utc) on Oct. 8, 2006]
I can say I am a fierce critic of google's practices and specifically MC... I am always thinking controversy in this case I think that what MC is trying to say is "don't buy or sell links, use adwords or adsense instead," and that is my contribution to this thread...
I don't trust MC cause he avoids answering questions relating to his department (spam) and has an army of followers who would post any crap on his blog to confirm their loyalty and change the subject to something less important (in my view). I am not in any way suggesting that everything he says is a lie...
From personnal experience, buying links helps both in terms of TBPR, PR and SERP positioning. Authority sites will always be trusted by google no matter what MC, GG or whoever G-staff says (take wikipedia as an example).
I agree that relevance is the key here... Irrelevant links, although they do pass PR juice, do little in terms of SERP positioning and in one of my sites that I was experimenting with, it even hurt my SERPs rankings, as since I got links from a property site my news site started to rank low for the relevant keywords and high for relatively few keywords which were property+news type of... which were not popular at all...
I am 99.99% certain that if a site has other types of penalties (e.g duplicate content, keyword stuffing, etc.) buying a link can not help with indexing or SERP ranking and the only thing that I noticed happening was that the page I bought the link on was showing in the gbacklinks but nothing else...
* Spent an hour on this thread... time for bed now... 4:41 in greece and I am supposed to be on holidays (WW is irresistible)
** Matt I am sure you are a nice guy.. But give us a break.. If only you knew how some people survive in this world..
Hope it was not a hard reading post...
acutally no, one last time.
NOW......- a site of PR4 purchase backlinks from high PR sites.
- PR update take place
- the said site start showing PR7
- the sellers sites retain their PR
Which leads us to the following conclusion:
- The high PR sites has passed PR (trust) to the low PR site
- I.e neither the high PR sites nor the low PR site have been subjected to " lose their trust in search engines" as Matt claimed.
- I.e Google has rewarded the backlinks sell/buy operation
- I.e Google is unable to police/mandate its own Guidelines.
SO WHAT? Doesn't mean the rank has actually passed and would go a long way to confuse webmasters into believing they are buying a quality link.
IGNORE THE TOOLBAR - IT'S A HOAX.
In the wise words of our government - WHERE THE BLOODY HELL ARE YA MATE?
Ranking is the only metric here.
The link buy may have actually been a good one. If you really want to tell research the links of the domain selling them and work it out.
If you actually think anyone in this thread is going to subscribe to your CUTTLET way of thinking you are greatly mistaken.
/end of thread/ we're not moving anywhere here.
[edited by: Bennie at 2:05 am (utc) on Oct. 5, 2006]
I noticed that even <a major Internet portal> is buying links to individual pages. I was shocked to be honest; they had about 10 or so in a block.
<Sorry, no specifics.
See Forum Charter [webmasterworld.com]>
[edited by: tedster at 2:11 pm (utc) on Oct. 5, 2006]
If you actually think anyone in this thread is going to subscribe to your CUTTLET way of thinking you are greatly mistaken.
I guess I need to recall the definition of
CUTTLET way of thinking
Its the academic approach to understanding and resolving specific problem(s).
"CUTTLET way of thinking" is very popular among College Graduates, btw :-)
Wish you all a great successful day!
For the benefit of our kind new fellow members and further discussion, here are few WebmasterWorld resources related to PageRank
Does PageRank Affect Your Ranking in Google? [webmasterworld.com]
Google PR - PageRank FAQs [webmasterworld.com]
Selling Text Ads/PageRank - Just Semantics? [webmasterworld.com]
And a single Google related resource:
PageRank Explained [google.com]
PageRank ExplainedPageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."
Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank, which Google remembers each time it conducts a search. Of course, important pages mean nothing to you if they don't match your query. So, Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search. Google goes far beyond the number of times a term appears on a page and examines all aspects of the page's content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it's a good match for your query.
IntegrityGoogle's complex, automated methods make human tampering with our results extremely difficult. And though we do run relevant ads above and next to our results, Google does not sell placement within the results themselves (i.e., no one can buy a higher PageRank). A Google search is an easy, honest and objective way to find high-quality websites with information relevant to your search.
I hope this helps!
PR is highly likely logarithmic, which means the distance from 5-6 is a lot bigger than from 4-5 and so on, so you can steadily and massively improve while the toolbar and so on shows no changes.
How can Google detect Link sellers buyers:
Highly likely with something similar to a bayesian algorithm [or some AI equivalent]. This means they hand reviewed sites they see as link sellers and buyers and then made a mathematical model. Should you be similar to said sites you are thrown out. Most importantly these algorithms are not perfect, so there is always a statistical error. So if you detect a site that escaped the algorithm that DOES NOT mean Google isn't after linksellers. It just means their algorithm is unprecise.
I think most importantly one should not fall into the trap to think that even if you find 20 or 100 examples of websites that do not do what Google claims, that this means Google is not doing it. It might just mean that within 1 million sites 100 sites show just a 1% Google error which is in fact quite good.
One really has to remove oneself from the idea most Google algorithms are clear and precise algebra.
To get a small idea what Google is really up to watch their tech talks
Google employees are "nicely forced" ("Are you going to the tech talk tonite?" as seen in one of their ads) to watch tech talks.
See this ad
[video.google.co.uk...]
These are published on Google video:
[video.google.co.uk...]
For example
this talk
[video.google.co.uk...]
has been translated into the Google image labeling game.
I think most importantly one should not fall into the trap to think that even if you find 20 or 100 examples of websites that do not do what Google claims, that this means Google is not doing it. It might just mean that within 1 million sites 100 sites show just a 1% Google error which is in fact quite good.
I never get tired of hearing this argument, which, of course, is completely absurd.
I've already given two HUGE sites that sell links. Google knows it, they know it, and more importantly they know Google's not going to do a damn thing about it. For all Google's bluster and threatening, they aren't interested in taking on major corporations with legal staffs 5x the size of Google's.
I could rattle off 50 more well-known big corporation sites, err make that their stable of 100's of sites, that sell links and every good SEO on here knows those links pass PR, Trust, ranking, and every other possible variable one could pass with an anchor text.
Google is well aware of these bought links and the companies that buy the links are just as big among the internet community.
It's not hard for Google's algo, or even a slightly curious webmaster, to decipher that 100,000+ links from the same IP among the footers are bought.
In fact, a "new" competitor of mine has just bought 200,000+ links from these "high trust" sites over the past 3 months, to go from domain placeholder site to #1 for a keyword (and all the related localized version of the keyword) that you'd give your left arm, first born, and grandmother for.
Google can "detect" and "penalize" are the small mom and pop websites they want. But I know the real deal.
But keep telling us how smart G's engineers are. That "new" competitor will make more in 4 months than most of those engineers will make in 5 years.
Perhaps G's legal team is smarter. ;)
But keep telling us how smart G's engineers are. That "new" competitor will make more in 4 months than most of those engineers will make in 5 years.
The actual argument was that G engineers are actually not that smart or at least bound by normal computational constraints.
AI itself is very dumb and well overhyped.
And exlusion for big companies is probably outside normal algorithms.
Which means that any example that Google does not what they claim to do has to be analysed carefully. Is it statistical error, business procedure?
If reseller can find x sites that slip through the net, that does not mean they don't try to do it, they might be simple unable to do it or do it on purpose. The official PR line will of course be different and all is well in G world.
On the other hand the other SE do what they want too .. Google has just dug themselves a hole with their "Do no evil" slogan and that they try to run Google like a university clone. This talk peer pressure thing is so like universities. lol.
[edited by: mattg3 at 12:47 pm (utc) on Oct. 5, 2006]
just do a test and see what happens.
re ..your post ##:3109255
as one mythical scandinavian night time entity to another ..how do you stop the goat hairs floating around the nescafé and get caught in your teeth ..or does one pick them out using the left over bones from a cuttlet?
Carefull ..the sun is up in Europe
Content is still king!
B.) MC is woefully un-informed and should never be listened to.
Is really, really, bad advice. You may not like the spin, the way he answers question in Google speak, or the fact you can’t prove what he says. I am not a naïve or gullible person but to just categorically dismiss all this person says is ridiculous and foolish. You need to take the time and put some work into sifting through what he says, do that and there’s a lot to be learned. I have read his blog, I have listened to him speak at conferences, I have seen him critique sites and there’s always a nice little nugget of information to be gleaned from it. Always take what company representatives say with a good grain of salt, but to categorically dismiss the information coming from this person is a mistake.
I'll take MC and all he wants to say any day over the brick wall of silence Yahoo offers up.
And speaking of Matt, he had this to say [mattcutts.com]:
Matt Cutts Said,
October 4, 2006 @ 10:11 amJoseph Hunkins, I read Jim’s post here:
<link to Jim Boykin's Blog>Sounds like Martinibuster is handling most of the common questions just fine..
I have seen that the backlinks shown are often those of LESSER value (i.e., the most valuable ones may not even be shown so "link chasers" won't have a gold mine at their finger tips).
Google has been doing this for years. If you want to see most all backlinks to a site use MSN or Yahoo.
Please, please, please go back and read
B.) MC is woefully un-informed and should never be listened to.
Is in context to
whitenight wrote
Reseller, as it seems you are unable to live in the reality of "grey" and everything must be viewed as black and white,Here are your choices.
Note - this seems the only way to explain the "phenomena" in your eyes, no?
It's called hyperbole [answers.com],
or
reading every other post I've made, which say
whitenight wrote
But I most certainly do not take MC's word at face value...The words of MC should always be taken with a grain of salt...Examine the SERPS...examining the SERPS and the ranking websites thoroughly and noticing what "works" and what doesn't and employing those techniques for their sites
Did I mention i hate quotes out of context.
It's bad enough when people do it to scare little webmasters into believing Santa's not coming to their house for SERP Christmas.
Please don't do it again. :)
[edited by: whitenight at 9:37 pm (utc) on Oct. 5, 2006]
Most interesting and of relevance to this thread is what Matt wrote today [mattcutts.com] :
I think it is hard to explain topic communities. I don’t how many times I’ve explained PageRank as “not just raw numbers of links, but the quality of those links,” only to see that reduced down to “raw number of links” in an article. So I sympathize with the folks that try to explain topic communities.
Converted to the topic of this thread; PageRank isn't just the number of purchased backlinks but the quality of the purchased backlinks.
And I agree 100% on that ;-)
Which means that if you intend to purchase backlinks of the kind that Google rewards, its better to focus on those sites of PR9 & PR10 and maybe to some extent those of PR8. From those high PR sites, there is high possibility that you are purchasing quality backlinks.
Thanks Matt for the tips ;-)
Most PR 10, 9 and 8 sites are not good choices for inbound links, for multiple reasons. A more plausible strategy would be to try to get some links from PR 7 and PR 6 sites that are more narrowly targeted on the topics that are relevant to your own site -- preferably on pages where the links will generate some actual traffic to your site, further confirming the relevance and significance of the links in Google's eyes.
reseller, why don't you do a simple test?
not on competitor's website (perhaps they got a nice natural PR8 linkthat you have missed) but with your own websites?
i believe if you buy links properly and use the chance the certain moment gives you can do well with that.just do a test and see what happens.
WHAT? Me purchasing backlinks from PR9 and PR10 sites?
Do you think that I'm a Google shareholder or something :-)
I'm already on budget preparing for X-Mas gifts for the children and grand children ;-)
Reseller: surely you jest?Most PR 10, 9 and 8 sites are not good choices for inbound links, for multiple reasons. A more plausible strategy would be to try to get some links from PR 7 and PR 6 sites that are more narrowly targeted on the topics that are relevant to your own site -- preferably on pages where the links will generate some actual traffic to your site, further confirming the relevance and significance of the links in Google's eyes.
In theory you mightbe right, but not in practice maybe. The way I see it, sites of PR7 and PR6 that sell backlinks tend to participate in what I call "Backlinks Merchant Networks" which mightbe monitored or could be monitored by Google very easily.
While especially sites of PR9 & PR10 sells backlinks in very "quite manner".
I would add, modify anchor text each time and include a few "click here"'s just in case :)
Anyone can research the top PR8 'n 9+ sites out there and most will want a link from them. This will lead to topic drift on the domain selling outbounds (leading to a diluted authourity) and also having the same link as your compeditors (not that bad, but hardly unique).
Somtimes it's far better to blaze new ground and get your links on hubs and authourities not so commonly known to your compeditors. These are the Gold links. PR has nothing to do with these links.
By focusing on PR, your detracting from the real game and this is what Matt and his Goog cronies want you to do (hence the CUTTLET THINKING). They can track all your movements far more easily.
Solid thematic backlinks (and potential for Backlinks) over PR any day.
Good luck out there in PR land mate. Try and avoid the Google Kool Aid it can do funny things to your head. Google PR never ceases to amaze me, their PR is flawless and second to none.
- Ben
reseller,Anyone can research the top PR8 'n 9+ sites out there and most will want a link from them. This will lead to topic drift on the domain selling outbounds (leading to a diluted authourity) and also having the same link as your compeditors (not that bad, but hardly unique).
Researching sites of PR9 & PR10 isn't that difficult. But to afford purchasing backlinks from those sites requires deep pockets. Those who have purchased backlinks from such sites know exactly what I'm talking about. So "anyone" can research but not "anyone" can afford to pay for that kind of backlinks!
By focusing on PR, your detracting from the real game and this is what Matt and his Goog cronies want you to do (hence the CUTTLET THINKING).
On the contrary. Matt keeps telling people [mattcutts.com] something in the direction: My advice is not to obsess about PageRank too much; it is one of more than 100 different factors in how we score documents.
Man, respect!
But also as the Google said:"Don't be evil". Don't buy High PR intend to improve SERP rank and disturb the normal SEPR. Otherwise, the Google will give you a lesson.
